tv [untitled] July 25, 2010 2:01am-2:31am PST
>> it might well be simple. i did not know that we had all agreed. my inclination is seen the light on the self going to the building to the west. this is a setback that mirrors the setback of this project. my inclination is to up old the department of -- my inclination is to uphold the department. we do have that east side setback. i am also concerned about those west side neighbors not voicing an opinion and i wonder if i was that neighbor, i would be upset
if i went forward and i did not get a chance to write a letter. i do have a question for mr. sanchez. the setback on the east side, we're talking about this set back on the west side. >> this is really the residential guidelines. my inclination is to support the department and to the planning commission as well. i am interested to hear from the other commissioners. >> i think we need to be careful.
i believe the west side extension to the permit holder and the property line, this rejection was by the residential design team. i don't think this is reflective of the residential design guidelines. the issue of the guidelines in respect to the matching of the light wells from my review of the design appears to accommodate the residential guideline. the question there is not only with what has been agreed upon with the neighbors. i think that having the circulation element through the center of the building can potentially reduce the problems
in terms of noise, etc., instead of running on the property line adjacent to someone else's property. i am in disagreement with what the project sponsor has indicated in the bottle -- in rebuttal. the impression would be impacted should the stairs have to move further into the deck. what it means is that the outline of the stair wall and the stair itself becomes less visible in the rear yard because this did not move closer to the building. in neither case, this terror
already engages the deck and in the room below it. the question that was raised by the residential design team is that they wanted to engage that further and not stick so far into the rear yard. i'm surprised that the issue was not fully brought forth before this. the wall provides both to the stair. if it was determined by the project sponsor that they are accepting, then it would have less impact on the neighbors. the way it is configured, this appears to be a reasonable solution. i would support the overruling
of the department definitely on the setback issue on the west. i am not sure that i would give thanks to the city attorney by commenting on the variance. >> there is an irony working here. the irony is that part of this has to do with maintaining some kind of integrity in terms of design. i think we will burn down the castle to save the moat. is it more important to adhere to the residential design
guidelines then to what is more beneficial for the neighbor? i'm not bored but the neighbors. they had the opportunity to give their opinion. these people seem very sincere. it is easy to see that the neighbor has signed off on this. they have not given an actual letter that we can turn over. i think it is more considerate of the neighbor and certainly a better design in terms of what we're hoping to a chief. the best that we can do is to continue this matter and let them explore with various avenues and let them try for late jurisdiction. maybe we can issue a new
variants letter. maybe this will extend the jurisdiction or maybe this will say something different and i do not want to give thanks to our city attorney but i hope that day prevail. >> i think the design as originally proposed looks more corporate and reasonable. i concur with this almost in the entirety. i think that you have done an effective job. you have modified your plans accordingly and you have done a lot of considerations and extra light work that we don't always see at this juncture. i already have a greater appreciation for that. as to the side, i would agree that we should overturn the department and the planning commission's ruling.
the stairs, to the extent that you have done the work with the neighbors that are most affected, this was what was what they seem to prefer as well as doing the garden work at your own expense, i think that speaks very well of you all. if i had my way, i would do the same one that peace. more practically speaking, i would go with the continuance or whatever alternative i believe that you have. >> i think that this is the first time that agree with every comment.
>> i invite the commissioner to make a motion. i make a motion that we continue this. can we partial this out? >> can i suggest that we cannot continue this? the act upon it and it will be their choice as to what further avenue perhaps the department might be a little bit more selective in further issuances on this particular various -- variance. >> of the move that we overturn the department and we accept the first proposal that was presented to the planning department. >> you are overturning in
granting the first proposal to the six -- to the extent of the wall. i thought we were better off with what had been proposed in terms of continuance. commissionger fung: as represented by the department, i accept what can only be before us is action on the site. the stair cannot be in front of it. commissioner garcia: i think we are better off continuing it, having expressed their feelings, and having led the department determine where to go next. >> is that at the call of the
chair? >> antje and dave are willing to accept the rear stair being pulled in and call it a day. we do not want to move forward and go through more torture. if the board would kindly propose that they would accept the west extension and the deck stair pulled back, we will not have to talk to you again until the next project. [laughter] commissioner garcia: that is the motion. the findings would be based upon the consideration of what is good for the neighbors. are those sufficient enough items, or do we need something more complete? president peterson: not as long
as the light well is compliant with the rdg's/ >> could you reiterate the language? we are overruling the permit. commissioner garcia: right, with the sights set back to be as originally proposed to the planning commission dr, and the steps to remain as altered by conditions imposed by the planning commission at dr. commissionger fung: do you want to reference that particular drawing? it is really a combination of one representing the set back, and when they made an alternative plan. that was moved inward. >> we have that motion.
it is to overrule the denial and grant that department with those conditions. president peterson: it is on one condition that the project sponsor's original design for the west side be accepted but the other design issue regarding the stairs was not accepted. >> on that motion, commissioner fung? commissionger fung: aye. vice president goh: no. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye.
>> it is overturned. president peterson: moving on to item 8. colorado that item, please. . call that timeimtem, please. >> the property is 2311 california st.. it protests the issuance on may 24, 2010 to alter a building. >> this is a representative of the appellant. >> good evening. i am here on behalf of paul wermer. i am here with the project architect. the contractor is also
available to answer questions. this in my opinion is an extremely unique set of facts. it is one of those situations that certain things -- we have two adjoining buildings, where one building, ms. unterberger's building, get structural support from the other building. we did not know that intel the remodel. it was a perfect stone. it revealed that things ms. unterberger had done it -- her building is attached structurally to the upper level to paul and carol's house. this is about a permit for work that was issued without plans. dbi began -- there was much made by paul in his reply belief --
his reply brief. we believe the issue with the plans is what is appropriate in this situation. it is not an extraordinary thing we are seeking. it is what they do to protect buildings. we are not asking the board to substitute its judgment for that dbi. we understand they are the technical experts. we're simply asking for the board to condition. we want ms. unterberger to complete the renovations. but we believe without transparency the risk to both buildings is heightened. all of them are benefited by that, as is dbi. with a plan, there is a road map. there is a way to know what has been affected by this work. the appeal is not about code enforcement. the appeal is not about whether ms. unterberger has or has not
done things. it is getting done now. we simply want a mechanism by which everyone involved knows exactly what is happening going forward, so there is a clear record. we are minimizing damage to both properties. the goal of the appeal is really to obtain code compliance for both buildings and insure there is a record to be clear that abatement occurred. i think when we come before this board we are looking to balance the equities and hardships. if you look at the equities and the hardships, the only hardship by not granting the condition we are looking for is on the wermers. they have tried to work with ms. unterberger over the past 5.5 months. it escalated. but as we showed in our opening brief, it was done. the walls are open and we now know what we are aware of. please work with us. we are willing to renegotiate a
property walt agreement. we are willing to extend that shall we have a repair and maintenance agreement. many of us here in sentences co are on top of each other. -- here in san francisco are on top of each other. when that failed, we were looking for some way to move forward with preparing the code violation. one of the main ones we have shown in our papers is -- her laundry shed is attached to paul and carlo'ol's house. when she does her laundry, their house shakes. now the building is open, you can see all kinds of water damage. i want to be really clear the lawsuit was filed for access. it was not to do the work that is being requested by ms. unterberger under the permit. it was to gain access so they could complete the remodeling.
as to miss unterberger, the plans are to her benefit. it sets a clear record for herself and anybody who buys the property what is going to happen. she can build on that. it also insures the contractor is involved the work is done properly. part of the problem we can talk about is that it looks like some of the work was done fly by night and haphazardly. you need to have plans also because the scope of work is not just minor. it is structural. we are really asking dbi to do what it does best -- which is to inspect. they insure the safety of joining buildings. plans are the rule, not the exception. we are not asking you to supersede the dbi. we just want you to review this permit and condition it. they are narrowly tailored to the situation. the scope of work is already in
the record. the kids transparency that benefits ms. unterberger, paul and carol, and the building department as to maintain permit records over the years and make sure what is there. the purpose and the goal is simply to insure the integrity of both buildings and enable both property owners to understand what has happened. then the work at the house can proceed and we get the benefit of a code compliant home. thank you for your time. >> good evening. my name is paul wermer. i filed the appeal. i have spent a lot of time in san francisco working to try to find constructive solutions. i am gone through the pacific heights residents' association. usually it is possible to work
successfully with people. there are a couple of letters testifying to my doing so. we have tried to work with ms. unterberger since before starting the project. unfortunately, we have been in -- we have been unable to have her sit down and address specific concerns, either hurts or hours. this is very stressful. her building is intimately attached to ours in various places. there are issues of dry rot. there are issues of beetles, and damage in areas attached to our building. without talking to her, without agreeing on how to move forward, we cannot fix these problems without unacceptable damage to other property. thank you. -- unacceptable damage to either property. thank you.
>> good evening. jeremy paul. this needs to go to the computer, please. we have a grouping of old houses in a row that are attached and associated with one another. the way in which they are interacting is not altogether clear. where the property lines are between them is definitely not clear, and what is and is not an encroachment has never yet been established. it seems that the appellant wants to make the decisions about what is an encroachment, what is not an encroachment, what is his property, and what
is her property without establishing the record of what that really is. the situation that they are in now began soon after the wermers started work on the property. there was considerable asbestos removal from the rear of the property and sally's contractor was at the house at the time and commented that the proper abatement steps were not being taken. he instructed her to call the department of building inspection about that. that was addressed. the building department stopped the work and required that the asbestos removal procedures be implemented. that was done. then a level of rancor or developed a following that -- a level of rancor developed following that that has spun out
of control. following the first demand letter from their attorney that made this lawsuit, sally unterberger has not been a healthy woman. she has gone to a series of surgery starting in early january on her shoulder and hands such that she was never able to give the attention to her house that she needed to give to her recuperation. it is unfortunate that her ability to be responsive to her neighbors' remodel -- she just was not physically able to do it at the time and the schedule that the remodel seemed to demand. so in order to push ms. unterberger to do things in the way they wanted them done, the requested that the district building inspector come in and have a look.
noticing what appeared to be deteriorated, dilapidated conditions, the district building inspector wrote a notice of violation. the notice of violation is very clear and very specific that the complete investigation -- the violation description was that the dilapidated conditions on the east side of the building in crashed into the neighboring property. this is the actual language that is on this notice of violation that is written by a district inspector. ms. unterberger's contractor has spoken with the inspector that wrote this, and he said he had discussed the language he was riding with the appellant before it was finalized. -- he was riding with the appellate before it was
finalized. the description was in detail and the corrective action required was in detail. what was not part of the corrective action specified on the nov were plans or penalties for these violations. it was just fix them. it was very clear we had begun to fix it. sally's contractor has created this list that he has discussed with the district inspector and has agreed that this complies with the intent of this notice of violation. where the requirement for plans would come in would be if she was trying to legalize a shed that holds her washing machine that is clearly attached next door. that is going to be removed. there is no attempt to legalize
that shed. so we do not need to file plans for an exterior alterations. what we need to do is what the building department asked us to do and repair the dilapidated conditions. it is an undue burden on the neighbor to require her to go to extraordinary measures at additional expense because your neighbor is in the middle of a remodeled. the building inspector was very clear about what needed to be addressed. she is prepared to address those things. she complied with the time line given to her for issuance of the permit. it was appealed right away. it kept her from doing this. if this had not been appealed, this work would already be done, the work on this notice of violation. there is other work in other portions of the house that may be addressed in this lawsuit. i am not her attorney. i do not really know what their
intent is with this lawsuit. but the fact is that what we are doing here tonight affect that. and we cannot ignore the fact that the department of building inspection and the board of appeals is being brought into this disagreement between these two property owners. it seems to me that if there is an encroachment been alleged and ms. unterberger needs to picks -- needs to accept expenses pertaining to that, the property line is going to need to be shown clearly before the project sponsor, the appellant, could require that their neighbor make changes to their property. thank you very much. president peterson: thank you. mr. kornfield.
>> lawrence cornfikornfield with the department of building inspection. i agree with everyone. i think the appellant is right. i think the permit holder is right. let me give you a little bit of history and tell you where the building department seems like it fits into this. actually, we are being dragged into this in some ways. it is a private dispute about the property line. this was a single building that had three town house structures or units in it. sometime, i think in 1953, the owner of the building, or the owners, chose to subdivide the building. they subdivided into these three separate buildings. if he were to subdivide such a building today, we would say you have to meet the code section.